Computer and IT Professionals Sample Cases

These are some sample cases from our files. It is impossible for us to present all have done past over 15 years of our practice. But these were some cases that came to mind when we started writing this column 2-3 years ago.

We represented an IT consulting company and a Senior Software Engineer employed by them from the point forward where they received an RFE. USCIS issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) questioning accreditation of the Indian universities where the applicant received his degrees. We researched the universities in question and documented that both are highly regarded and world renowned institutions. Additionally, we received an expert opinion that noted that both universities were accredited at the time the applicant received his degrees. In our response, we pointed out that there is more than one relevant accreditation body in India and both universities in question were and are recognized by the Indian government. The case was approved in about two weeks.

We have received a series of reversals and remands from the USCIS appeals office (“AAO”) where we had argued that the USCIS had erroneously and illegally revoked approved I-140 petitions. The grounds of appeal in the cases involved:

Failure to prove qualifications of employee because the documentation of experience was insufficient;

Successorship-in-interest of companies, where one company was acquired by another;

The revocation of the I-140s have been reversed and USCIS has been asked to revisit their decision.We are by no means out of the woods yet, but at least we are vindicated in our understanding that these decisions were against law and policy.

USDOL had denied a series of cases for many employers represented by various law firms. The ground of denial was that when "engineering" was one of the acceptable majors for an IT job, that created too much ambiguity for a case to be approved. DOL stated that there are fields of engineering, such as Agricultural Engineering, which are clearly inapplicable to IT positions.

This ruling had become a nation wide issue.

We filed an MTR pointing out the defects, legal and factual, in the ruling. We also indicated our willingness to litigate this highly unfair ruling in federal courts. DOL has, most appropriately, reversed their decision.

We won this case for the applicant who had over twelve years research and teaching experience. He was considered a critical component to the success of his current project. At the time of filing, the applicant had over 22 publications in prestigious, international scholarly journals. The applicant's significant contributions had been cited by other renowned researchers in his field. His Ph.D. work was highly regarded and noted to be admired by several leading experts.

We won this case based on the applicant's critical role in a key U.S. Air Force project. His level of expertise in this specialized field was highly sought after and necessary to achieve the military's objectives. We provided letters from experts in the Air Force stressing their need to keep the applicant on the project or else it would fail.

We won this case by providing evidence of the impact of the work this applicant was conducting in her field. Numerous referees provided detailed recommendation letters outlining the necessity for the continued efforts of this applicant. Her teaching capabilities were noted as being far superior to others in her field. This applicant's unique background was shown to be scarce in the United States.

This applicant was a data recovery specialist under contract with the U.S. government providing critical skills to a high-level project. It was noted by referees that his knowledge and background were rare and greatly needed in the interest of our national defense. We provided documentation of his academic achievements as well as additional specialized training.

We won this case for an applicant with expertise in computer science utilizing his skills in the development of e-Government. His work was considered pioneering worldwide. We provided evidence that he was frequently called upon to present his work. He also served on numerous program committees.

This applicant was a highly regarded researcher with over fourteen years experience. We provided evidence of the applicant's international reputation due to his publication record and requests for conference presentations. In addition, we provided strong reference letters which detailed the applicant's overall record of outstanding achievement and contributions to the field.